Legal Solutions Blog Today in 1893: The Supreme Court rules that tomatoes are vegetables, not fruits - Legal Solutions Blog Are corporations “people”? Is a tomato a fruit or vegetable? You may have noticed that one of those questions seems a bit out of place. No, I’m not referring to the “Obamacare” one; I’m talking about the “tomato” question. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court did, indeed, answer that question in 1893’s Nix v. Hedden , decided 120 years ago today. You are probably wondering what led to the Court’s deciding such a question. The law at issue in Nix is the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, which imposed a tax on imported vegetables of 10% ad valorem (of its value). This tax didn’t apply to fruits. The importers, John Nix, John W. Nix, George W. Nix, and Frank W. Nix, brought suit against the port collector to recover the duties paid for their imported tomatoes, arguing that since tomatoes are, botanically speaking, a fruit, the tariff didn’t apply.

At trial, both parties read the definitions of “fruit,” “vegetable,” “tomato,” and several other fruits and vegetables from Webster’s, Worcester’s, and the Imperial Dictionaries. One witness also testified that the terms “fruit” and “vegetable” hadn’t acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce distinct from those definitions read from the dictionaries. The trial court granted the port collector’s motion for a directed verdict, and the Nixes appealed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. However, the Court didn’t look at the dictionary definitions read at trial since, according to the Court, “dictionaries are admitted, not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court.” Thus, the Court only looked at the “ordinary meaning” – that is, “the common language of the people” – since the evidence at trial established that the words “fruit” and “vegetable” have not “acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce.” Although the Court conceded that, “[b]otanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine,” it further held that the common conception of the produce is as a vegetable.

The Court made the same distinction with “cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas” (none of which are vegetables, botanically speaking). In explaining its decision, the Court stated that the tomato is a vegetable since it is served as part of the main course of a meal, “and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.” If you can believe it, the Court actually had directly relevant precedent to rely on in making this decision: Robertson v. Salomon , decided four years earlier. Salomon, like Nix, dealt with the definition of “vegetable” under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883. Instead of deducing the identity of the tomato, Salomon resolved the question of whether white beans were “seeds” (and exempt from taxation under the tariff) or “vegetables.” Although the bean is botanically a seed, the Court reached the same conclusion as it later did in Nix: that the common conception of beans is as a vegetable, since they are most often produced as food, not as seeds to be planted. Regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled in either case, a tomato is still a fruit and a bean is still a seed.

But as a testament to the great power wielded by the high court, even when the Court is unequivocally wrong in a decision, it’s still correct. And this maxim isn’t any less true today than it was 120 years ago. Nix v. Hedden − Dipping Into LightDipping Into Light # Nix v. Hedden Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that, under U.S. customs regulations, the tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit. The Court’s unanimous opinion held that the Tariff Act of 1883 used the ordinary meaning of the words “fruit” and “vegetable,” instead of the technical botanical meaning. The Tariff Act of March 3, 1883 required a tax to be paid on imported vegetables, but not fruit. The case was filed as an action by John Nix, John W. Nix, George W. Nix, and Frank W. Nix against Edward L. Hedden, Collector of the Port of New York, to recover back duties paid under protest.

Botanically, a tomato is a fruit because it is a seed-bearing structure growing from the flowering part of a plant. At the trial, the plaintiffs’ counsel, after reading in evidence definitions of the words ‘fruit’ and ‘vegetables’ from Webster’s Dictionary, Worcester’s Dictionary, and the Imperial Dictionary, called two witnesses, who had been in the business of selling fruit and vegetables for 30 years, and asked them, after hearing these definitions, to say whether these words had “any special meaning in trade or commerce, different from those read.” During testimony, one witness testified that in regard to the dictionary definition: “[the dictionary] does not classify all things there, but they are correct as far as they go. It does not take all kinds of fruit or vegetables; it takes a portion of them. I think the words ‘fruit’ and ‘vegetable’ have the same meaning in trade today that they had on March 1, 1883. I understand that the term ‘fruit’ is applied in trade only to such plants or parts of plants as contain the seeds.

There are more vegetables than those in the enumeration given in Webster’s Dictionary under the term ‘vegetable,’ as ‘cabbage, cauliflower, turnips, potatoes, peas, beans, and the like,’ probably covered by the words ‘and the like.'” Another witness testified that “I don’t think the term ‘fruit’ or the term ‘vegetables’ had, in March 1883, and prior thereto, any special meaning in trade and commerce in this country different from that which I have read here from the dictionaries.” Both the plaintiffs’ counsel and the defendant’s counsel made use of the dictionaries. The plaintiffs’ counsel read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word tomato, while the defendant’s counsel then read in evidence from Webster’s Dictionary the definitions of the words pea, eggplant, cucumber, squash, and pepper. Countering this, the plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster’s and Worcester’s dictionaries the definitions of potato, turnip, parsnip, cauliflower, cabbage, carrot and bean. The court unanimously decided in favor of the defense and found that the tomato should be classified under the customs regulations as a vegetable, based on the ways in which it is used, and the popular perception to this end.

Justice Horace Gray, writing the opinion for the Court, stated that: “The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word ‘fruit’ as the seed of plants, or that part of plants which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are ‘fruit,’ as distinguished from ‘vegetables,’ in common speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act.” Nix v. Hedden - The Full Wiki The Full Wiki More info on Nix v. Hedden Wikis Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles . Related top topics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nix v. Hedden Decided May 10, 1893 Full case name John Nix, John W. Nix, George W. Nix, and Frank W. Nix v. Edward L. Hedden, Collector of the Port of New York Citations 149 U.S. 304; 13 S. Ct.

881; 37 L. Ed. 745; 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2303 Prior history Judgment for defendant, 39 F. 109 (C.C. S.D.N.Y. 1889) Subsequent history None Holding Tomatoes are "vegetables" and not "fruit" within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1883 based on the common meaning of those words. Court membership George Shiras, Jr. · Howell E. Jackson Case opinions Majority Gray, joined by unanimous Laws applied Tariff Act of 1883 (Mongrel Tariff) Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 ( 1893 ) [1] , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a tomato was classified as a fruit or a vegetable under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883 , which required a tax to be paid on imported vegetables, but not fruit. The case was filed as an action by John Nix, John W. Nix, George W. Nix, and Frank W. Nix against Edward L.

Hedden, Collector of the Port of New York , to recover back duties paid under protest. Botanically a tomato is a fruit. The court, however, unanimously ruled in favor of the defendant, that the Tariff Act used the ordinary meaning of the words "fruit" and "vegetable" – where a tomato is classified as a vegetable – not the technical botanical meaning. Contents 7 External links The case At the trial the plaintiffs ' counsel, after reading in evidence definitions of the words 'fruit' and 'vegetables' from Webster's Dictionary , Worcester's Dictionary, and the Imperial Dictionary , called two witnesses , who had been for 30 years in the business of selling fruit and vegetables, and asked them, after hearing these definitions, to say whether these words had "any special meaning in trade or commerce , different from those read." During testimony, one witness testified that in regard to the dictionary definition: "[the dictionary] does not classify all things there, but they are correct as far as they go. It does not take all kinds of fruit or vegetables; it takes a portion of them.

I think the words 'fruit' and 'vegetable' have the same meaning in trade today that they had on March 1, 1883. I understand that the term 'fruit' is applied in trade only to such plants or parts of plants as contain the seeds. There are more vegetables than those in the enumeration given in Webster's Dictionary under the term 'vegetable,' as 'cabbage, cauliflower, turnips, potatoes, peas, beans, and the like,' probably covered by the words 'and the like.'" Another witness testified that "I don't think the term 'fruit' or the term 'vegetables' had, in March 1883, and prior thereto, any special meaning in trade and commerce in this country different from that which I have read here from the dictionaries." [2] Both the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendant's counsel made use of the dictionaries. The plaintiffs' counsel read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word tomato, while the defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words pea , egg plant , cucumber , squash , and pepper .

Countering this, the plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster's and Worcester's dictionaries the definitions of potato , turnip , parsnip , cauliflower , cabbage , carrot and bean . The Court's decision Botanically, a tomato is a fruit. However, in common parlance it is seen as a vegetable, hence the United States Supreme Court ruled that legally, a tomato is a vegetable. The court unanimously decided in favor of the defense and found that the tomato was classified as a vegetable, based on the ways in which it is used, and the popular perception to this end. Justice Horace Gray , writing the opinion for the Court, stated that: "The passages cited from the dictionaries define the word 'fruit' as the seed of plants, or that part of plants which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are 'fruit,' as distinguished from 'vegetables,' in common speech, or within the meaning of the tariff act." Justice Gray cited several different Supreme Court cases (Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37 , 42 , and Jones v. U.S., 137 U.S.

202, 216) and stated that when words have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce the ordinary meaning must be used by the court. In this case dictionaries cannot be admitted as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Gray acknowledged that botanically , tomatoes are classified as a "fruit of the vine ", nevertheless they are seen as vegetables because they were usually eaten as a main course instead of being eaten as a dessert . In making his decision, Justice Gray mentioned another case where it had been claimed that beans were seeds — Justice Bradley , in Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U.S. 412, 414, similarly found that though a bean is botanically a seed, in common parlance a bean is seen as a vegetable. While on the subject, Gray clarified the status of the cucumber , squash , pea , and bean . Subsequent history Nix has been cited in three Supreme Court decisions as a precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions. (Sonn v. Maggone, 159 U.S. 417 (1895); Saltonstall v.

Wiebusch & Hilger, 156 U.S. 601 (1895); and Cadwalder v. Zeh, 151 U.S. 171 (1894)). Additionally, in JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc., 917 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), a case unrelated to Nix aside from the shared focus on tomatoes, a judge wrote the following paragraph citing the case: "In common parlance tomatoes are vegetables, as the Supreme Court observed long ago, see Nix v. Hedden 149 U.S. 304, 307, 13 S.Ct. 881, 882, 37 L.Ed. 745 (1893), although botanically speaking they are actually a fruit. 26 Encyclopedia Americana 832 (Int'l. ed. 1981). Regardless of classification, people have been enjoying tomatoes for centuries, even Mr.

Pickwick , as Dickens relates, ate his chops in 'tomata' sauce." In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited Nix as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the official state vegetable . [3] See also Carrot – defined to be a fruit in European Community law , for the purpose of jam classification SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 149 U.S. 304 Nix v. Hedden ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. THIS was an action, brought February 4, 1887, against the collector of the port of New York, to recover back duties, paid under protest, on tomatoes imported by the plaintiff from the West Indies in the spring of 1886, which the collector assessed under "Schedule G. -- Provisions," of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c.

121, imposing a duty on "Vegetables, in their natural state, or in salt or brine, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, ten per centum ad valorem"; and which the plaintiff contended came within the clause in the free list of the same act, "Fruits, green, ripe or dried, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act." 22 Stat. 504, 519. At the trial, the plaintiff's counsel, after reading in evidence definitions of the words "fruit" and "vegetables" from Webster's Dictionary, Worcester's Dictionary and the Imperial Dictionary, called two witnesses, who had been for thirty years in the business of selling fruit and vegetables, and asked them, after hearing these definitions, to say whether these words had "any special meaning in trade or commerce, different [***2] from those read." One of the witnesses answered as follows: "Well, it does not classify all things there, but they are correct as far as they go. It does not take all kinds of truit or vegetables; it takes a portion of them.

I think the words 'fruit' and 'vegetable' have the same meaning in trade to-day that they had on March 1, 1883. I understand that the term 'fruit' is applied in trade only to such plants or parts of plants as contain the seeds.

There are more vegetables than those in the enumeration given in Webster's Dictionary under the term 'vegetable,' as 'cabbage, cauliflower, turnips, potatoes, peas, beans, and the like,' probably covered by the words 'and the like.'" The other witness testified: "I don't think the term 'fruit' or the term 'vegetables' had, in March, 1883, and prior thereto, any special meaning in trade and commerce in this country, different from that which I have read here from the dictionaties." The plaintiff's counsel then read in evidence from the same dictionaries the definitions of the word "tomato." The defendant's counsel then read in evidence from Webster's Dictionary the definitions of the words "pea," "egg plant," "cucumber," "squash" [***3] and "pepper." The plaintiff then read in evidence from Webster's and Worcester's dictionaries the definitions of "potato," "turnip," "parsnip," "cauliflower," "cabbage," "carrot" and "bean." No other evidence was offered by either party.

The court, upon the defendant's motion, directed a verdict for him, which was returned, and judgment rendered thereon. The plaintiffs duly excepted to the instruction, and sued out this writ of error. Are Tomatoes Fruits or Vegetables? | Mental Floss Are Tomatoes Fruits or Vegetables? Image credit: Like us on Facebook Here's a scene you'll probably see this summer: you'll be at a barbecue or picnic, enjoying nice, fresh in-season tomatoes, and you might make an offhand comment about tomatoes being your favorite vegetable. Almost immediately, some know-it-all will pipe up with, "Tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables!" No one would blame you if you told your pedantic guest, "Wow! Thanks for correcting me! It's clear now why everyone enjoys your company so much!" That response is a bit aggressive, though, so try this one instead: "Actually, according to the Supreme Court, tomatoes are vegetables. I'm just trying to keep this picnic nice and legal." Yes, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the "Are tomatoes fruits or vegetables?" debate, and the justices came to a firm conclusion: tomatoes are veggies.

Let's take a look at how this momentous decision came to pass. The Trouble with Tariffs Like a lot of American' history, the great tomato debate was the product of a tariff. In March 1883, Congress passed a new tariff act that put a 10-percent import duty on any whole vegetables brought into the country. The new tariff didn't really cause any hullabaloo until the produce-importing Nix family tried to bring a load of tomatoes from the West Indies into New York. The collector of the port of New York, Edward L. Hedden, charged the Nixes the 10-percent duty on their tasty wares despite their angry protests that tomatoes were fruits, not vegetables. Hedden refused to classify the offending tomatoes as fruit, so the Nixes sued him to recover their tariff duties. Ripening Justice Botanically, the Nix family had an airtight case. Tomatoes fit the bill of being the fleshy ripened ovaries of a plant, which makes them fruits. Legally, things weren't quite so open-and-shut, though.

The Nixes' efforts to be reimbursed for the tariff duties kicked off a six-year legal battle that ended with arguments before the Supreme Court in 1893. The Nix family's lawyer read the Justices the definitions for "fruit," "vegetable," and "tomato" from various dictionaries and even called in expert testimony from fellow produce merchants on whether the grocers thought tomatoes were fruits or vegetables. The defense used many of the same tactics in its efforts to convince the justices that tomatoes were indeed vegetables. The defense counsel went to the dictionary for definitions for "squash," "pepper," "eggplant," and "cucumber." The defense's argument was pretty simple: sure, tomatoes were biologically a fruit, but for the purposes of trade and commerce—that is, the things covered by the Tariff Act of 1883—tomatoes were really vegetables. The Court Rules When faced with this information, the Supreme Court unanimously found that tomatoes were vegetables.

Justice Horace Gray admitted in his decision that while tomatoes were technically the fruit of a vine, they were always served "at dinner in, with, or after the soup fish or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert." In other words, unless people wanted to start capping a meal with tomato ice cream, tomatoes were for all intents and purposes vegetables and could be taxed as such. The Nix family wasn't getting its import duties back. Sound strange? Here's something that's even weirder: the Supreme Court actually had a precedent for a very similar issue. In his decision Justice Gray referenced a previous Supreme Court case, Robertson v. Salomon, in which Justice Joseph P. Bradley had written the opinion that beans were vegetables rather than seeds. In that 1892 decision, Bradley rebuffed the notion that beans were seeds: "We do not see why they should be classified as seeds, any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds, in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance.

On the other hand in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term 'vegetables.' As an article of food on our tables, whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup, they are used as a vegetable, as well when ripe as when green. This is the principal use to which they are put." Tomatoes-As-Veggies Lives On At first glance, the Nix v. Hedden decision sounds like a Gilded Age curiosity, but the whole "tomatoes are a vegetable" notion still pops up from time to time. In 1981 the Reagan administration was searching for ways to cut school lunch costs while still providing students with the full nutritious lunch consisting of milk, meat, bread, and two servings of vegetables. USDA bureaucrats hit on the idea of counting ketchup as one of the servings of vegetables under the logic that ketchup was cheap and kid-friendly. As you might imagine, parents and the media weren't so keen on the idea of counting a smear of ketchup on a burger as eating your vegetables. The proposition enraged parents and nutritionists alike, and the administration quickly scrapped the plan. In 2005, Nix v.

Hedden came back into the news in New Jersey. The Garden State is nationally known for its delicious tomatoes, and lobbyists have used the Supreme Court's vegetable ruling in their efforts to get the tomato named the state vegetable. Arkansas had earlier decided to play both sides of the debate in 1987 when it passed a single bill declaring the South Arkansas Pink Vine Ripe Tomato both the official state fruit and the official state vegetable. Tennessee and Ohio, on the other hand, have pleased botanists by making the tomato their official state fruits. Supreme Court of the United States | Uncyclopedia | Fandom powered by Wikia Supreme Court of the United States From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia This article is about the old people who fuck up the Constitution . If you were looking for the satanic cult, see Most Super Mega Ultra Powerful Great Supreme Overlord Court of the United States of America . FACTS DETECTED It's funny 'cuz it's true .

“I know a place where the Constitution don't mean squat; the Supreme Court” ~ Richard Nixon on Supreme Court “These tedious old fools!” ~ Judge Dredd on the Supreme Court “This supreme court is in need of an unbiased Swiss judge who is completely unbiased in imprisonment/internment/relocation/reloternment centers” ~ Giusep nay on the Supreme Court “The Supreme Court whats that?!” ~ George W. Bush on the Supreme Court The (Supreme Court) Justice League of America. Pictured from left to right: Baldy the Supreme Court Mascot, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Roberts, Jr., Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Sonjua Soultimierre. The Supreme Court of the United States is the largest corporate defense firm in the United States of America , and is the head of the Senior Citizen Branch of the Federal Government, one of three separate, but equal governmental bodies, along with the Lynching and the Execution branches. It consists of the Superman and eight Superheros no one cares about, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate .

Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed to serve for life, and they can only be removed through resignation, assassination, poop-in-the-faceation or Impeachment . No justice has ever been successfully removed from office by Congress, though many have retired because they got pissy from the diarrhea. Justices, on average, need at least three naps a day. Contents edit Appointments Computer-generated graphic of the ideal Republican candidate: extremely conservative, black, and sexually unrestrained. Supreme Court justices are not elected by the citizens of the United States. In protest, most Americans have decided to refrain from doing anything at all. Justices are appointed by Presidents, who are themselves occasionally appointed by justices. Usually when the latter happens, the presiding Chief Justice is struck dead by God in about 5 years, which everyone agrees is pretty fair. Supreme Court justices must serve three consecutive life sentences. Unlike other jobs, the Supreme Court does not require any experience. Seriously. We wouldn't joke about that, honest. Popular picks for the Court are ex- McDonald's , Walmart , and Oklahoma City Law employees. edit History Computer-generated illustration of the ideal Democratic pick: Slightly less conservative, with fluffy breasts and a vagina.

The Supreme Court was first made in 1523, by President Calvin Coolidge , with 7 Justices, 5 of them being Calvin Coolidge. Eventually he eased off this, and only occupied 4 of the positions. Originally the court was designed as a place for men to masterbate together. Then immediately the court spent the next five century define pornography. Under the system, the court came up with, any material that sets the majority of the members off, counts as pornography. (the writer of previous statement spent more than 5 minutes looking up history of legal definition of porn After that, of course, Oscar Wilde had been the sole judge of all internal and external disputes in America, and was responsible for: giving the shit bits to Canada, keeping Spanish people out of the good bits, and even ruled on the famous case of Pot v. Kettle (A racist battle upon which "To Kill a Englishman " was based- the Pot of course accused of calling the Kettle black, despite the fact it was clearly pink, involved as it was at the time with another Kettle) After Tom Cruise was elected, he immediately nominated L. Ron Hubbard , determined to supplant faith with the ever potent idiocracy.

This is largely believed to be one of the causes of The Presidential Battle Royale of 1975 . In 1981, Charles Nelson Reilly received his first opportunity to nominate someone. He went with then senator Pat Robertson to the position of Chief Justice. This court became known as the Robertson Court. Along with Robertson, Antonin Scalia , and Clarence Thomas were nominated. This formed the "Fascist Wing" of the court. edit Recent Chaos In 2005, Chief Justice Pat Robertson passed away at the hands of a Venezuelan Assassin. George W. Bush nominated John Roberts to replace him, forming the Roberts Court. Later, he nominated Harriet Miers as well. edit Cases before Court edit Marbury vs. Madison The Supreme Court's first big issue came after some fallout from their decision on Marbury v. Madison , after which President Calvin Coolidge told the court that they could go clean the gallows. As a result the court decided not to convene for an entire year. During this year, the economy started to regain speed, and there was peace throughout the land. Upon seeing this the court decided to reconvene, and never to take a break that long again.

Once disorder was back in order, the court continued onto their next escapade. Immediately after that case their was an attempted assassination, on the court. It was however "stopped" by the Monks of Mancalla, who were later discovered to be behind the plot. edit The Judge Dredd Scott Decision A soon-to-follow case involved the right of one man to use a Badge and a Lawgiver to own another man, and execute him on the spot. Race was a factor. [1] The High Court was definitely high on something, because it held that law and order demanded that one man must have the right to own and judge another, thus upholding slavery and guaranteeing the War of Northern Aggression would be forthcoming. edit Brown vs. Board of Education The next case they handled, in 1594 , was the Brown v. Board of Education. Apparently some slave wanted to get an education, and wanted to fight about it in the courts. The justices were in no mood for none of the slave's nonsense and quickly sentenced both the slave, and the board of education to death.

The punishment was deemed necessary to teach both the board of education, and the slaves, to shut up and leave the courts out of their petty squabbles. The president at the time, Calvin Coolidge was jealous of the court, even though he was one of the 6 justices himself, and decided to make it mandatory for all crimes against the government to carry a death penalty. Naturally, the Congress did not like that, and decided to try to remove some of the court members via means of assassin, but these assassins were no match for the talented killer on the Justice's side, Michael Jackson . edit Sick Chicken Case A lesser known landmark case, it set the precedent for public orgies. edit Roe vs. Cod Roe v. Cod was a petition on behalf of unborn cod, arguing that they had an inherent right to be fertilized. The case is currently stalled on a technicality; it ought to be held underwater, but none of the judges can last long without breathing. edit Satanic Serpents vs. The Beatles Satanic Serpents v. The Beatles , over the legal rights to apples. The case was delayed until Mr Harry Potter of London, England was fetched as a translator to explain to the judges just what the plaintiffs were saying.

edit Fight vs. Flight see Fight or Flight edit Rosy vs. Third Liiife Inc. Phyllis Rosy former president of Second Life and Third Liiife Inc.s filed a suit against Third Liiife Inc. and co-founder Baron Von Brunk . The defendant was acquitted from charges that he "unfairly" fired her from her own company after it was ruled that the plaintiff had never existed. This set the popular precedent requiring plaintiffs to be real not imagined or pretend people. Rosy vs. Third Liiife Inc. was most famous, however, for a ground-breaking duel that took place right before arraignment of the defendant. Ms. Rosy delivered a roundhouse kick to Mr. Von Brunk upper torso that launched him several feet underground. The court placed Von Brunk in contempt for failure to appear for arraignment. edit Jesus vs. USA Jesus v. United States was a groundbreaking Supreme Court case involving the right of the divine to smite people of his or her choosing. Heard by Supreme Court Justice Steve Ballmer in 1906 between the Henry Ford Wars , it sets legal precedent for smiting rights .

In a surprise decision; Justice Ballmer felt that Jesus did in fact have the right to smite people of his choosing. To his shock and awe , Jesus stood up and did just that. The stenographer has the following in the records: Jesus: You're goddamn right I can! (ketchup flies from ceiling) However, a side ruling was made declaring that after each smiting a "sexy party" must take place to continue the proper periodic cycle. This precedent has been used successfully by the following people/organisations/things: A list of those smote by Jesus afterwards included Bub the Zombie , Hitler , Benjamin Franklin , Switzerland , George W. Bush , Richard HOLY SHIT!!! Cheese and Evil Lincoln . edit Bin Laden vs. USA Bin Laden vs. USA was an landmark land-usage case of the early '00s, in which Osama bin Laden sued the US Government on the basis that the World Trade Center was ruining the New York skyline.

In a decision that surprised legal analysts, on September 10, 2001, the court voted 7-2 in favor of bin Laden, with the majority decision (written by Justice Scalia ) stating that the Trade Center was "just too fucking high." As ordered by the court, demolition of the Trade Center was performed on the following business day. This case set new standards for public construction in major metropolitan areas, and has contributed to the sharp decline in construction of tall buildings over the past few years. edit Roe vs. Brown Due to popular demand and after the success of " Survivor: All-Stars " the winners of two of the biggest Supreme Court Matches were set to face off against each other in mono a mono in an event televised by ABC. Tom Bergeron hosted the week-long event. In the end, the Supreme Court voted to uphold the right to have an abortion over the right to have ethnically diverse schools in a 6-3 decision. Tom Bergeron recently was quoted as to saying, "Hosting this is the thing I regret most in life." Fuck you dude. Get some original work. edit Rossie O'Donnell vs.

God In 2007 Rossie O'Donnell brought a civil suit against god for her creation, citing 3 main points, 1)Her different sized boobs 2)Lack of a brain; as evidenced by her wacky conspiracy theories, and 3)Her being a Lesbian. Although God did hired Cochran his defense fell apart when the court found out he was drunk at the time. The record showed that god was originally creating a man when he stuck a vagina and a pair of breasts that he couldn't find matches for on it, and called it Rosie. Rosie was awarded half a brain, and a penis, but not testicles. On account of the fact that Rosie is to loud and obnoxious with out balls. edit Money vs. Looks Famous Supreme Court case from about a decade ago, where it was decided just how shallow females tend to be in choosing their male suitors. After months of evidence and surprise witnesses out the wazoo, it was finally decided that Money was winner by a vote of 6-5, with then Chief Justice Optimus Prime writing the main brief. As for the rest of the rabble not covered under either category, we're effectively screwed .

After this decision was finally made, a follow up court case was set in front of the Justices to decide how shallow males were in their preferences for the opposite (or same) sex. In Looks v. Looks (1997), the decision was an unprecedented unanimous one, 11-0 in favor of Looks. Note: If you're reading "Money vs. Looks," chances are you have neither. edit Nix v. Hedden Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a tomato was classified as a fruit or a vegetable under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, which required a tax to be paid on imported vegetables, but not fruit. The court ruled in favor of tomato being a vegetable. It should be noted that none of the justices of the Court was a fruit, but some were indeed vegetables, a tradition which continues to this day. edit Members of the Supreme Court Tə - ˈmeɪ - toʊ / Tə - ˈmɑ - toʊ: Fruit or Vegetable?

| Jafari Law Group doctrine , New York , Orange County Fair , Patents , PROSECUTION , Uncle Sam , United States I recently visited the annual Orange County Fair for the first time and was very impressed with the array of attractions. Thousands of turkeys barbecued over open flames raising clouds of the essence of summer over the entirety of the fair. A Bubble Roller pool showcased kids zipped up in life sized bubbles and tossed into a giant pool to float and swirl about. And incredible gardens were growing everything from herbs, strange fruits, and common vegetables – including tomatoes. I must say that I am passionate about home grown tomatoes and I am particularly fond of the heirloom varietals (including Mr. Stripeys and Green Zebras). But what caught my eye at the fair was a small placard below a row of run of the mill tomato plants that brought up one of those questions that supposedly was resolved in kindergarten. Are tomatoes fruits or vegetables? Of course they are fruits! Everybody knows that. Ask any kindergartner and she will tell you the same. But not according to this placard and not according the Supreme Court of the United States. Nix v.

Hedden decided on May 10, 1893 settled the issue and ruled that tomatoes are vegetables. This one of those cases that one wonders how it wound up in the high Court, but the history is revealing. Depending on whether tomatoes were legally considered fruits or vegetables made a big difference in the taxes that had to be paid on imported tomatoes. If tomatoes were fruits, no taxes were necessary. If they were vegetables, a ten percent tax based on their value was due to Uncle Sam. The Supreme Court based its decision on what actually makes sense to every kid before they enter kindergarten, i.e., tomatoes look like vegetables, smell like vegetables, and taste like vegetables. Thus, they must be vegetables. The Court stated, “[b]otanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans and peas. But in the common language [and sense] of the people … all [of] these are vegetables.” Unfortunately this meant that the Mr. Nix was not going to get a tax refund that year from Mr. Hedden, the Collector of the Port of New York.

Aside from this age old question of whether the tomato is a fruit or vegetable, this case illuminates a larger and very important principle – the plain meaning doctrine. As the Court noted in Nix, words “must receive their ordinary meaning.” Although people such as scientists, botanists, and the like have argued that tomatoes are technically fruits, this is no match for the common sense reality that tomatoes are really vegetables. The plain meaning doctrine applies not only in tax related cases but in all types of cases, including patent cases. Thus a simple rule of thumb when claiming what a patent is – or trying to explain anything in life for that matter – is to stick with the ordinary and plain meaning words used in “common parlance,” as Justice Gray put it in the Nix opinion. After all, in this hyper technical world that we live in, sometimes it just makes sense to keep it simple and explain things so that a kindergartner can understand them. About the Author André Ausseresses is an attorney at Jafari Law Group . He has been with the California based law firm since 2012, earned a JD from Chapman University Fowler School of Law in 2014, and passed the California Bar Examination in 2015.

Note that any information contained in this blog is not legal advice, but is for informational purposes only. Please contact one of our attorneys if you have a legal issue that needs solving. Social Share Take Our Word For It, page four, Sez You... Sez You... From Dick Timberlake: I always assumed that propaganda was like agenda - neuter plural of the gerund, not feminine singular. A quick glance in my dictionary at work does not answer this. Maybe it's a fine, pedantic point, but I'd like to know which it is, fer sher. Can you give a definite answer? The OED sayeth... Propaganda: Sometimes erroneously treated as a plural (= efforts or schemes of propagation) with singular propagandum, app. after memorandum, -da [Our emphasis added - M&M] From Steve Saunders: Re: Barb Dwyer's gripe in issue 179: As one who dislikes long, confusing telephone menus, it occurred to me that perhaps the bank is simply being honest and is offering to serve Barb up to the gods of poor service (rare, medium, or well done). Love your site! Your wit, enthusiasm and erudition are a delight to us all.

Sounds like you've had about as much luck with banks as we have! Thanks for the kind words. From Jodi Blackman: Thanks for such a great site and newsletter, they are really interesting and entertaining. Keep up the good work. As to Barb Dwyer's Curmudgeon's Corner, I have had the "pleasure" of a similar experience, only with my telephone company. Trying to navigate through their automated customer "service" line was like trying to drive in fog. I entered my phone number when prompted, several times, only to be asked that for very same thing when I finally spoke to a human (at least half an hour later.) You mean banks have terrible telephone menus in Australia, too? (Jodi's from Oz.) From Ken Berry: Great to see a new issue of your excellent Webzine! I was, however, surprised about your admission of ignorance when it came to fardel.

Like many a schoolboy in the English-speaking world, I first came upon the word in the famous Hamlet soliloquy 'To be or not to be' in Act 3 Scene 1 of the play of that name: ...who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; From Stephen Blackburn: As always, a pleasure to read Take Our Word For It. Love the Cockney site. "Hu's On First" is brilliant and now making the rounds of my friends (with a link to your website). My first (and only) encounter with fardel has been in Hamlet. In the famous soliloquy "To be or not to be," Hamlet asks "who would fardels bear...?" (III,i, 76) My Penguin William Shakespeare: The Complete Works (1974) notes fardels as meaning burdens in this context.

But it meant even more specifically "misfortunes," based on my Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 2d Ed. (1979), which lists fardel as "a bundle or pack; hence, a burden; misfortune. [Archaic.]" Our astonishment (and dire prophecies of doom) was directed mostly at the OED for its mispelling of fardel as fardle. From Myfanwy Davies: I don't have a comment as such, just wanted to say welcome back and hope you had a nice break. You have been missed! As we hope everyone now knows, Melanie was on an extended business trip in January and February but has finally returned home, so the publishing of TOWFI has resumed! Diolch yn fawr, Myfanwy fach. From Mark Lutton: I read the note in your letters column about a tomato being both a fruit and a vegetable. It may interested you to know that the Supreme Court of the United States has decided the question: Tomato is a vegetable. The case was NIX v. HEDDEN, May 10, 1893.

Imported vegetables were subject to a 10% duty; fruits were free. Mr. Hedden was the tax collector, and Mr. Nix, after paying duties on tomatoes under protest, sued him for a refund, reading in evidence the dictionary definitions of "fruit", "vegetable" and "tomato." The court found that for purposes of trade and commerce, "the common language of the people" was to be followed rather than botanical definitions. Tomatoes, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips and other vegetables, are served with the main part of the meal; fruits generally as dessert. The plaintiff got no refund. Is pizza really a vegetable? Learn the history of veggies | Dictionary.com Blog November 20, 2011 by: Dictionary.com 388 Comments You may have heard that the U.S. Congress recently reaffirmed that pizza is a vegetable. Of course, the situation is more complicated than that. The U.S. Department of Agriculture—which regulates the school lunches served to millions of American children—proposed a new standard for school lunches. Specifically, they suggested reducing the amount of sodium in school lunches, and they also wanted to cut down on french fries and pizza.

As it stands, two tablespoons of tomato paste (the amount that goes on a one-serving pizza) counts as a vegetable. The USDA suggested raising that to half a cup, which would mean that a one-serving pizza would no longer be a vegetable. Last week, Congress nixed these new regulations and reaffirmed that two tablespoons of tomato paste counts as a vegetable . (If you are old enough, this may remind you of President Ronald Reagan declaring ketchup to be a vegetable in 1982. The difference however is that Reagan never succeeded in implementing that suggestion.) Depending on who you ask, a single food (or word, for that matter) may be classified in any number of ways. A scale performs a different function for a chef than for a personal trainer. One measures food, the other a person. Sometimes the difference in classification can be attributed to regional dialects . For example, depending on where you live in the United States, you may call a sweet carbonated beverage coke, pop or soda. (Read more about that fraught debate here .) In other cases, the common, or colloquial , definition does not match the technical, scientific definition.

The word “vegetable” comes from the Latin word vegere which meant “to be alive or active,” but it did not denote anything about food. For a long time the word “vegetable” was used synonymously with the word “plant.” As late as 1858, Oliver Wendell Holmes called both trees and peaches “vegetables,” in his book The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table. What are vegetables now? Well, that depends on who you ask. Botanists, nutritionists, government agencies, and everyday people all hold contradictory opinions on the matter. Let’s take the example of two tablespoons of tomato sauce. We already know what Congress thinks of that, but what does the USDA recommended nutrition think of it? Tomatoes are part of the family of “ Red or Orange Vegetables ” which also includes squash, carrots and red peppers. Botanists would say that tomatoes are Solanum lycopersicum, and we technically eat the fruit of the plant.

( Genetically speaking, the tomato is very closely related to the potato.) According to nutritionists anything from beets (which are roots) to spinach (which are leaves) to tomatoes (which are fruits) count as “vegetables.” They are typically rich in nutrients and low in fat and protein. The main difference between fruits and vegetables are that fruits are sweet (and higher in sugar) and vegetables are savory (and lower in sugar). Find out what makes a berry a berry here . Today vegetables have gotten a bad rap. They are seen as flavorless and disgusting , even though there are some desserts (carrot cake for one) that are made with “vegetables.” Maybe the word is the problem. What do you think counts as a vegetable? Does the word itself change your feelings toward it?

Question: On May 10, 1893, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Nix v. Hedden, which address the issue of whether the tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. Which one is it?
Answer: Vegetable